Random thoughts, poems, jottings, and as it says, musings. About anything and everything!

Tuesday, 24 January 2017

The Evasive Politician

The Evasive Politician

One of the Newsnight’s most famous interviews in 1997 saw
the presenter Jeremy Paxman ask then-Home Secretary Michael Howard the same
question twelve times. He was asking what had led to the head of the prison
service, Derek Lewis. “Did you threaten to overrule him?” asked Paxman. And
again. In the space of eight minutes (giving plenty of time for evasive
waffle), Paxman asked the same question twelve times. He never got a yes or no
answer.

Jeremy Paxman: Mr. Lewis says, "I, that is Mr. Lewis,
told him what we had decided about Marriott, and why. He, that is you,
exploded. Simply moving the governor was unpalatable; it sounded indecisive, it
would be seen as a fudge. If I did not change my mind and suspend Marriott, he
would have to consider overruling me". You can't both be right.

Michael Howard: Mr. Marriott was not suspended. I was
entitled to express my views, I was entitled to be consulted.

Jeremy Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?

Michael Howard: I was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis,
and I did not instruct him...

[Did you threaten to overrule him?]

Michael Howard: ... and the truth. Look, the truth of the
matter is Mr. Marriott was not suspended. I did not...

[Did you threaten to overrule him?]

Michael Howard: I did not overrule Derek Lewis.

Jeremy Paxman: Did you *threaten* to overrule him?

Michael Howard: I took advice on what I could and could not
do, and I...

Jeremy Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him, Mr. Howard?

Michael Howard: ...acted strictly within that advice. I did
not overrule Derek Lewis.

Jeremy Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?

Michael Howard: Mr. Marriott was not suspended.

Jeremy Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?

Michael Howard: I have accounted for my decision to dismiss
Derek Lewis...

Jeremy Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?

Michael Howard: ...in great detail before the House of
Commons.

Jeremy Paxman: I note you're not answering the question,
whether you threatened to overrule him.

Michael Howard: Well the, the important aspect of this,
which it's very clear to bare in mind...

Jeremy Paxman: I'm sorry, I'm going to be frightfully rude.
It's a quite straight yes or no question with a straight yes or no answer.

Michael Howard: Yes, you can put the question and I will
give you an answer.

Jeremy Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?

Michael Howard: [pause] I discussed this matter with Derek
Lewis. I gave him the benefit of my opinion. I gave him the benefit of my
opinion in strong language, but I did not instruct him, because I was not
entitled to instruct him. I was entitled to express my opinion, and that is
what I did.

Jeremy Paxman: With respect, that is not answering the question
of whether you threatened to overrule him.

Michael Howard: It's dealing with the relevant point, which
is what I was entitled to do, and what I was not entitled to do. And I have
dealt with this in detail before the House of Commons and before the Select
Committee.

Jeremy Paxman: With respect, you haven't answered the
question of whether you threatened to overrule him.

Michael Howard: Well, you see, the question is what was I
entitled to do and what was I not entitled to do. I was not entitled to
instruct him, and I did not do that.

According to Emily Maitlis, the woman who eventually
succeeded Paxman on Newsnight, the era of badgering your interviewees -
exemplified by that bruising encounter - is well and truly over. She made that
statement to the Daily Mail in May 2016.

It is perhaps ironic that Theresa May (the month’s namesake)
showed the same evasiveness when asked a question by Andrew Marr:

AM: When you made that first speech in July in the House of
Commons about our Trident nuclear defence, did you know that misfire had
happened?

TM: Well, I have absolute faith in our Trident missiles.
When I made that speech in the House of Commons, what we were talking about was
whether or not we should renew our Trident missiles…

AM: Did you know that it had happened?

TM: I think we should defend our country. I think we should
play our role within NATO and have an independent nuclear deterrent. Jeremy
Corbyn thinks differently. Jeremy Corbyn thinks we shouldn’t defend our
country.

AM: But this is a very serious incident. Did you know about
it when you were talking in the House of Commons?

TM: And the issue that we were talking about in the House of
Commons was a very serious issue… it was about whether or not we should renew
Trident. Whether we should look to the future, that’s what the House of Commons
voted on. I believe in defending our country, Jeremy Corbyn voted against it,
he doesn’t want to defend our country with an independent nuclear deterrent…

AM: Prime Minister, did you know?

TM: …there are tests that take place all the time regularly for
our nuclear deterrence. What we were talking about in that debate that took
place…

And we had a similar example in Jersey, when Chief Minister
Ian Gorst also dithered and prevaricated over the resignation of Senator Philip
Ozouf.

It doesn't do politician's reputations any good when they are evasive. They may chalk up a minor success for evading the direct answer, but in the eyes of the general public, it makes them look shifty.

They are what Peter Bull, in his paper "Techniques of political interview analysis" calls "intermediate responses", which fall somewhere between giving a reply and not giving a reply, and can be placed midway on a scale of evasiveness between direct answers and outright evasion."

Senator Gorst supplies us with a text-book case study of that.

As Bailiwick Express reported: “Under considerable pressure to clarify that Senator Ozouf
was offering his resignation, and that he would accept it, Senator Gorst was strangely
reticent to use the term "resign", preferring "step aside,"
and to say for definite he would acquiesce, once any letter from Senator Ozouf
was received. Once again the Bailiff had to step in and force the Chief
Minister to say finally, "yes," he WOULD accept Senator Ozouf's
resignation, once received.”

Philip Ozouf’s actual statement avoided the word “resign”,
and instead took refuge in euphemisms which were taken up by the Chief
Minister. Senator Ozouf said: “I have no wish to be a distraction or media
sideshow during this review period and so I shall be writing to the Chief
Minister offering to step aside from my responsibilities as Assistant Chief
Minister.”

Following pressure from St Helier Deputy Geoff Southern,
Senator Ian Gorst said: “He has offered to step aside from his role as
Assistant Chief Minister. That means he will no longer be Assistant Chief
Minister.”

But Deputy Southern was not satisfied with Senator Gorst’s
answer. It led to the Bailiff getting involved. He said: “Chief Minister, I
think the Assembly is entitled to be quite clear about the position, as indeed
are the public.

“As I understand your answer, Senator Ozouf has volunteered
to step aside, he hasn’t yet done so, and so as at the moment, he remains in
place as an Assistant Chief Minister.

“If he makes that offer to you, you will accept it. Is that
the position?”

Senator Gorst replied: “Sir, he’s been quite clear that he
will be doing that, and when he does, ‘yes’ is the answer.”

Why on earth couldn’t he bring himself to use the word “resigned”
rather than “step aside”? Notably, referring to what he would do if any inquiry found hum culpable, Senator Gorst used the term "step down" and not "step aside"

When Devolution Cabinet Secretary Anne Waiguru was under
investigation in Kenya, politicians from held two meetings in Nairobi to
discuss whether or not they should ask him to ask her to step aside, which was
then seen as a political euphemism for suspension, while the allegations were
being investigated.

So is this a more of a suspension than a resignation?
Senator Ozouf no longer sits on the Council of Ministers, but that’s not the
same as using the word “resigned”.

Instead we have “step aside” – not “step down” (which is
always used for resignation) – which suggests the image of Senator Ozouf
waiting in the wings for an opportune moment to come back on stage.